1. Speaks of it in terms of an illness: "...how severe a case...", etc.
2. Begins with it being "...a problem of pride...", not an actual refutation of the arguments.
3. "No one can judge the Pope." This has been dealt with countless times, in such a way that to bring it up again shows either ignorance or dishonesty.
4. Fr. Perez claims that we can say the Pope is saying/teaching/doing things contrary to what has already been defined. Yes, as this simply means we can use our brains, calling a spade a spade. This is judging the words/actions of the man.
5. Sedevacantists/Feeneyites? There is no connection between the two, Padre. Most Feeneyites are actually sedeplenists.
6. Every sedevacantist I know understands quite well that a man "can be both wrong and the Pope." Fr. Perez is arguing against a straw man here. I have seen this done by men much more able than Fr. Perez seems to be.
7. Claims Pope fell into Arianism, yet provides nary a shred of actual evidence. Oddly talks about the Pope's recantation of his errors, and that he died within the embrace of Holy Mother Church. Uh, Padre, if you put it in those words, that means that you believe he was outside this embrace at some point. Holy Church has never said such herself. Fr. talks about "quoting" this as an example, but he does not provide an actual quote when doing so.
8. "Pope St. Thrombosis; the Council of Lasagna..." Is this man seriously asserting that appeal to ecclesiastical docuмents is a problem? Note the use of absurd names in order to denigrate the appeal that is rightly made to Church teaching and history. He has no answer to these docuмents, so he denigrates the appeal made to them.
9. "Entirely theoretical"? Church law does not deal with trifles, nor do her doctors speculate about things that cannot actually happen.
10. "This person's a loon..." The usual dig, following an analogy that is not even remotely applicable - for no one is claiming that their statement about the See being vacant has any effect in the order of law (de jure).
11. Claims the sedevacantists waste their "entire day and life". Up to this point, about halfway through the sermon, he has not addressed a single point of substance. He has called names, and dealt with one very flimsy straw man.
12. "Get that point...We have no jurisdiction." Padre, no one is even claiming to have it - get that point.
13. "They get very upset when you don't agree with them..." Many of you have seen me deal with all kinds of people who do not agree with me. I ask you: Do I usually "get upset", just because people do not instantly agree with what I say? Of course not.
14. Hutton Gibson is not to be taken as representative of all sedevacantists, just as he cannot be taken as the typical American, or as the typical Hollywood father.
15. "In the end, that's how they are..." General statements are unwise and often used in a less-than-genuine manner.
16. "...'But they're good people.' No. No, and no...Sedevacantism is a radical spiritual problem."
17. Says bishops can declare de jure what we are saying is true de facto. Correct.
This man clearly does not understand that no sedevacantist is claiming anything they say has force in the order of law.
18. Talks about positive doubt without defining it. Acts as if it comes from hearing a statement from the Pope (in his example). Nonsense. One can, in fact, have positive doubt from a lesser source. He also disdains the idea that one can have doubt "in your head". Padre, where else would doubt exist, if not in your head? Doubt exists in a man's intellect, or it does not exist at all.
19. "Diabolical, satan, snake, insidious..." Throw the scary terms out, Padre.
20. Gets into the clearly bogus idea of Cardinal Lienart's Masonry nullifying Abp. Lefebvre's Orders. Very few hold to this, as it is patently absurd.
21. "How to deal with sedevacantism? You don't."
Well, Padre, you have followed your plan there. This man has not dealt with anything of substance in this entire sermon.
22. He totally misrepresents the una cuм issue, likely through not understanding it. This misunderstanding causes him to attribute certain things to sedevacantists that have no basis in reality.
That was possibly the most substance-less discussion of sedevacantism that I have heard. He talked a lot about charity and humility, but I did not hear him say that his people ought to pray for sedevacantists.
If this sermon convinces anyone of anything, I would be surprised.